nanushka

Is it possible that he's represented by the same union but not only in conjunction with his specific job at the Met? I work in a field in which unions play no role whatsoever, so I'm rather stupid when it comes to how they work and are organized.

I agree, though perhaps not for the same reason. To my mind, someone made a stupid mistake then paid a relatively modest and commensurate price for it. Onward...

Also, if much of the sourcing for that is still coming just from posts and comments on Norman Lebrecht's blog (I haven't seen any other sources referenced here), that site is notoriously troll-infested (using the term respectfully in its official sense, of course), and the comments there are mostly based on gossip and hearsay. There aren't really any content standards there like we follow here at BA. Lebrecht is also far from objective on the issue (he's far from objective on many issues, and really has historically demonstrated serious problems when it comes to basic things like facts): his first post was titled "EXCLUSIVE: WHY PETER GELB FIRED UNCLE JOHN COPLEY." It was completely based on hearsay, presented as fact, and subsequently contradicted by the second Times article (which included reference to Copley's having not disputed that newspaper's account). I haven't seen a more representative sampling of the opinions of people in the business, but I also haven't looked. Perhaps there are other forums where a more representative sampling of views is being voiced; perhaps many of those would still be in favor of Copley, I don't know. But I also get the sense that not many in the opera world are even really talking about it. My partner works in that world, has coworkers with connections across many different organizations within it, and knows far less about the topic than I do just from reading this forum. (That said, I don't dispute the possibility that there are pockets — even large ones — of outrage; one member here has referenced such sentiments being widely expressed. I'm simply reporting what I've experienced.)

How can it be "beside the point" to cite laws when "the point" being made (at least, I believe it was the point aurora and I were both making in the context quoted here) is that a given action is an example of the type of behavior that constitutes sexual harassment under the law? (If anyone wants to make specific suggestions as to how the law should be changed, that's another very big discussion that could be had; personally, I don't see a need for such changes at this particular time.) It is true that a single instance such as Copley's would likely not be actionable under the law, which typically requires behavior (which may include acts of speech) that is "so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment." Copley's remark was likely not "severe" enough to fit the standard, but it is precisely the sort of remark that, as part of a pattern of similar or identical behavior, would indeed be actionable, and I'm sure has been successfully prosecuted in many cases. But whether it is legally actionable or not is irrelevant to whether it was acceptable for him to have been fired, as kylara7 has quite rightly pointed out: Whether for moral or pragmatic reasons, or both, the Met did not want to be the sort of workplace in which remarks such as Copley's are seen as appropriate; it fired him; problem solved. Copley lost out on a week or two of work for what he did.

I don't think that's what aurora was saying at all, though I could be wrong.

I'm sorry, could you please explain what "theory" you are referring to? I'm not sure which theory I have proposed. My recent posts have asserted my opinions only, I believe. I was referring to the chorus member's right to decide for himself, of course, not to Copley's (note spelling). I haven't been putting myself in anyone's shoes. I've been asserting that people should be able to walk in their own shoes. That principle has been central to my arguments all along. I presume that the chorus member acted in what he felt to be his best interest.

In my opinion it is no one’s right but his own to say or determine what’s best for him. (Even if he cannot say it in English.) And in my opinion it is often a sign of privilege to think that one’s own views of what is best for others are superior to theirs. That is just my opinion.

I think what aurora wrote is at the heart of the matter. And I’m a white man.

Seriously. It was like a one- or two-week gig, probably.

I agree, but at least here it is in many cases legal (and, I would argue, moral) to fire someone even if they haven't been convicted of a crime.

I believe the criminal investigations are ongoing.

Including Copley himself, reportedly.

Where does she make the claim and what does she cite as the basis for it? If that were true, I would think the Times would have mentioned it along with the other potentially complicating factors discussed in the article.

Deleted.

The core of my argument is here, posted this morning, page 3 above:

I have explained at length on these pages why I believe that remarks such as Copley's (as reported), in a professional environment, to a subordinate colleague, constitute an offense and why, yes, I consider the "complainant" to be an alleged victim (and I believe I have always used the term alleged). You are welcome to disagree, of course, but if you would like to know my reasoning I would simply ask that you read carefully what I have written. And again, there is no evidence whatsoever from eyewitness testimony or credible reporting, that I have been made aware of, that Copley's remark was a joke. It may well have been; I personally don't think it matters much if it was.

kfw, your very first post on this topic began as follows: That, to me, was telling. I'm not saying that, since then, you have expressed no empathy here. But I can see where aurora is coming from (and I share the feeling) in thinking that there has been a lot of blaming the alleged victim here and a lot of excusing of Copley's offense (to the extent of suggesting there was no offense at all, in some cases). (I'm not singling you out in summing things up thus, by the way. It's come from several different sources.)

kfw, as aurora clarified, she was talking about an experience from her past in that reference, not about Copley.

That is interesting. Though it doesn't sound like any "big uproar" caused its removal. The article mentions some audience gasps and "the condemnation of some critics," and it's been revived since then, presumably with the slap. (Again, I haven't seen it.) It sounds more like it was removed as a precautionary measure, to avoid any potential controversy in the wake of recent events.

Yes, I personally read the article primarily as projecting a sort of "Keep moving people, nothing to see here, things are great, carry on!" message.

Admittedly, I haven't seen R+J, but it sounds like Kathleen Tracey may be laying it on a bit thick: Amazing!

In terms of U.S. law, both deeds and words can constitute sexual harassment, and no “sexual threat” (assuming you mean a threat of actual physical sexual contact) is necessary for either to constitute sexual harassment.

Of course I don't completely ignore them. I simply think it's the case that, if it is true that "there's no malice in the man whatsoever," that doesn't mean that everything he says or does in the workplace is appropriate for that environment. He doesn't need to have spoken in malice to have made a serious mistake. (I've never suggested in the least that I thought Copley acted in malice. He could have said exactly what has been reported, speaking not at all in jest, and still not have been speaking with malice.) And they weren't cited in the article as speaking to his general character; they were cited as having characterized the event in a particular way. But they weren't there. So they can certainly serve as character witnesses, but they can't serve as eye/earwitnesses.

Fair enough. I didn't give enough weight to your "if" in my reading. If the remark was indeed the one that has been reported, I would hope that all could agree, regardless of the intention in which it was uttered, that it was inappropriate, not probably inappropriate, in the workplace. But perhaps we can't.

Where does it say that union members who were presumably present came to Copley's defense? The union officials were also representing Copley, the article says, so they could have been merely acting on his behalf. If Copley's intentions are important, we should at least not invent details pertinent to those intentions which are not substantiated in the first-hand reports of the incident.